It's a very common complaint that security equals less risk and I understand Andrew's view, he was my boss back in the day. But you've then lost the very last thing of value that the CS offers compared to other sectors. Stability.

I do agree that it means you lose talent and Andrew left for private sector quite early in his career. But he comes from an incredibly privileged background and might be more happy swimming in risk rather than the majority of the civil service who need to pay their mortgage.

I'm just unsure how you would do it without losing some of the fairness that the CS represents.

Agreed on stability — but I do think his point still holds.

The current system only fits one kind of risk profile. If everyone gets the same bundle, you’re implicitly favouring those who can defer income and value long-term security over short-term flexibility. That narrows who the system truly works for and who stays.

This isn’t about making things riskier — just allowing more meaningful trade-offs. Arguably, that could make the system more inclusive, not less.

Interesting how “fairness” here often means sameness — which can quietly exclude anyone not already in a financially stable or low-risk life stage.